Page images
PDF
EPUB

§ 21. As to the simplicity of structure, it may be said in a very eminent degree to belong to both. It is, in itself, regarded more as a quality of narration, but is by no means excluded from the other kinds of composition. Besides, in our Lord's discourses, particularly his parables, there is a great deal of narrative. Simplicity of sentiment appears more in the dialogue part, and in the teaching, than in the narration, which is almost confined to what is necessary for information and connection. It may be objected, that our Lord's figurative manner of teaching is not perfectly compatible with simplicity. But, let it be observed, that there is a simplicity of manner, in the enunciation of the sentiments directly signified, which a piece of writing that admits a figurative or allegorical meaning, is as susceptible of, as one that admits only a literal interpretation. Greece has not produced a more genuine specimen of this than we have in the Apologues of Esop, which are all nevertheless to be understood figuratively. In Cebes's Table, which is an allegory, there is great simplicity of diction. It is only with the expression of the literal or immediate sentiment, that this quality is concerned. And nothing surely can, in this particular, exceed the parables of our Lord. As these are commonly in the style of narration, they are susceptible of the same simplicity of structure as well as of sentiment, with the historian's narrative, and are, in this respect, hardly distinguishable from it.

But the third sort mentioned belongs peculiarly to the historian. In our Lord's discourses, though the general and ultimate object is the same throughout, namely the honour of God by the recovery of men, the particular and immediate object varies with the subject and occasion. At one time it is to in

struct his hearers in one important doctrine or duty, at another time in another; sometimes to refute one error, at other times another; now to rebuke what is wrong, then again to encourage in the practice of what is right. We have all the variety of threats and promises, prohibitions and precepts, rebukes and consolations, explanation and refutation, praise and blame. These undoubtedly require a considerable variety in the style and manner. Now, there is occasion for nothing of this kind in the narrative. The historians with whom we are here concerned, do, in their own character, neither explain nor command, promise nor threaten, commend nor blame, but preserve one even tenour in exhibiting the facts entirely unembellished, reporting, in singleness of heart, both what was said, and what was done, by their Master, likewise what was said, and what was done, to him, by either friends or enemies. Not a syllable of encomium on the former, or of invective against the latter. As to their Lord himself, they appear to regard his character as infinitely superior to any praise which they could bestow: and as to his persecutors, they mingle no gall in what they write concerning them; they do not desire to aggravate their guilt, in

the judgment of any man, either by giving expressly, or by so much as insinuating, through the severity of their language, their opinion concerning it.

22. NAY, which is more remarkable, the names of the high-priest and his coadjutor, of the Roman procurator, of the tetrarch of Galilee, and of the treacherous disciple, are all that are mentioned of the many who had a hand in his prosecution, and death. In regard to the four first, it is manifest that the suppression of the names, had the facts been related, would have made no difference to contemporaries; for in offices of so great eminence, possessed by single persons, as all those offices were, the official is equivalent to the proper name, which it never fails to suggest; but such a suppression would have made to posterity a material defect in the history, and greatly impaired its evidence. In regard to the fifth, it is sufficient to observe that, without naming the traitor, justice could not have been done to the eleven. Whereas, of those Scribes and Pharisees who bargained with Judas, of the men who apprehended Jesus, of the officer who struck him on the face at his trial, of the false witnesses who deposed against him, of those who afterwards spat upon him, buffeted and mocked him, of those who were loudest in crying Away with him; Crucify him; Not this man but Barabbas; of those who supplied the multitude with the implements of their mockery, the crown of thorns, the reed, and the scarlet robe, of those who upbraided him on the cross with his ina

bility to save himself; or of the soldier who pierced his side with a spear; no name is given, by any of

the historians.

It may be said, 'The names have not been known 'to them.' This may have been true of some of their names, but cannot be supposed to have been true of them all, and that, with regard not to one, two, or three, but to all the four Evangelists. The witnesses must have been persons of the country, and, at least, occasional hearers of our Lord. It was, no doubt, chiefly the people of Jerusalem, who tumultuously demanded his execution, who derided him with the title of Messiah, and who insulted him even on the cross. Curiosity, on such occasions, leads men to inquire about persons who act a principal part, in a scene so tragical; and, that the disciples were not beyond the influence of this motive, is evident from the whole of the story. The names of the Roman soldiers, concerned in this transaction, might have been unknown to them, and probably little minded by them; but the actions of their countrymen must have excited another kind of emotion, as it more nearly affected all his followers.

Now, this reserve in regard to the names of those who were the chief instruments of his sufferings, is the more observable, as the names of others to whom no special part is attributed, are mentioned without hesitation. Thus Malchus, whose ear Peter cut off, and who was immediately after miraculously cured by Jesus, is named by John; but nothing further is told of him than, that he was present when our Lord

was seized, and that he was a servant of the highpriest. Simon the Cyrenian, who carried the cross, is named by no fewer than three of the Evangelists; but we are also informed that, in this service he did not act voluntarily, but by compulsion. Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus are the only members of the Sanhedrim, except the high-priest, who are mentioned by name; but they were the only persons of that body who did not concur in condemning the Son of God, and who, though once fearful and secret disciples, assumed the resolution to display their affection, at a time when no one else ventured openly to acknowledge him. Our Lord's biographers, whilst they are thus far ready to do justice to merit, avoid naming any man, without necessity, of whom they have nothing to say that is not to his dishonour. To the virtuous and good they conciliate our esteem and love, an effectual method of raising our admiration of virtue and goodness, and exciting in us a noble emulation; but our contempt and hatred they direct against the crimes, not against the persons of men; against vices, not against the vicious; aware that this last direction is often of the most dangerous tendency to Christian charity, and consequently to genuine virtue. They showed no disposition to hold up any man to the Christians of their own time, as an object of either their fear or their abhorrence, or to transmit his name with infamy to posterity.

Though this holds principally in what concerns the last great catastrophe, it appears, in some de

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »